3245
Clarence Thomas: SCOTUS Protects Abortion, 'Looks Other Way' on 2A (www.breitbart.com) 🔥 FIRE & FURY 💥
posted ago by ENVYNITAZ ago by ENVYNITAZ +3245 / -0
Comments (339)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
17
Snake 17 points ago +19 / -2

Having laid out this rule, Gorsuch then explains why discrimination against LGBTQ employees constitutes “sex discrimination” by laying out two examples.

Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer’s mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague.

That is, if an employer permits its female employees to have sexual and romantic attractions to men but denies that same right to male employees, it is engaged in sex discrimination. It treats men differently than women.

Gorsuch also applies similar logic to a transgender employee:

Or take an employer who fires a transgender person who was identified as a male at birth but who now identifies as a female. If the employer retains an otherwise identical employee who was identified as female at birth, the employer intentionally penalizes a person identified as male at birth for traits or actions that it tolerates in an employee identified as female at birth. Again, the individual employee’s sex plays an unmistakable and impermissible role in the discharge decision.

https://www.vox.com/2020/6/15/21291515/supreme-court-bostock-clayton-county-lgbtq-neil-gorsuch

This entire case falls apart if you get rid of the SEX protection lol. I love this because it should make everyone happy (but it probably won't). LGBTQ people get their protections and we still get to respect biology. Male/female are determined at birth.

One thing this doesn't do (like Tim Pool suggested) is that you can't claim to be a different species because this is about SEX. Tim Pool suggested you could identify as a tiger or something but that really doesn't apply.

Let's say Person X and Person Y identify as a tiger. If person X is a female and Person Y is a male and you fire them both then it's not sex discrimination.

The only way that would be sex discrimination is if you allow a male to be a tiger and not a female (or vice versa).

17
deleted 17 points ago +17 / -0
6
No_Malarkey_Joe 6 points ago +6 / -0

I think more than anything else you're going to see employers get even more cagey or creative about why people are getting let go. I'd also guess that people who aren't in protected classes just became more attractive as applicant's because it's less liability if they turn out to be garbage at their job.

As a disclaimer, I'm basing that off some videos I've watched and from reading people's comments on here.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
The_Bloofy_Bullshark 3 points ago +3 / -0

I identify as a man who identifies as a woman identifying as a man. I'm even on HRT (read: blasting a ton of steroids) to get me to the level of man-woman-man I see myself as.

My wife, who is also on steroids, and I have a running joke that she's a tranny. So I'm a MtFtM tranny who is (gay?) married to a FtM (based off of her test levels) tranny.

Really sends the point home about the insanity of it all.

3
Snake 3 points ago +5 / -2

People are going to push the craziest bullshit through the courts and force it as high as possible to try to get their 97 genders legitimized.

IMO no this won't happen.

Let's say Person X identifies as Gender Y

  • If Person X is a female and you are ok with them behaving as Gender Y but not if person X is male then that is sex discrimination.
  • If Person X is female and you are ok with them behaving as Gender Y and you are ok with it if X is male then it's not sex discrimination.
  • If Person X is female or if the person is male and you're not ok with either behaving as Gender Y then that is also not sex discrimination.

Imagine if Gender = tiger gender (Tim Pool said something like this). A business owner could not allow either males or females to be employed as tiger gender because there is literally no discrimination based off of sex because all sexes are not allowed to be tiger gender.

1
Stationhollow 1 point ago +1 / -0

If their behaviour is something that you don't accept from a male or female then it isn't sex discrimination.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
3
deleted 3 points ago +4 / -1
2
MakeAmericaLegendary 2 points ago +2 / -0

What if (unironically) ugliness is used to justify the firing? "Person X is ugly and ruins morale. They also happen to be trans, but that's not why we fired them. We fired them for being ugly."

1
Snake 1 point ago +1 / -0

Precedent should work fine for this https://www.businessinsider.com/how-can-hooters-hire-only-women-2015-9

Edit: To clarify, you'd be able to get away with this at Hooters or a strip club or if you're making a movie or whatever. Probably wouldn't work for traditional businesses.